🎦 Star Trek full movie HD download (J.J. Abrams) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Star Trek
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Storyline: On the day of James Kirk's birth, his father dies on his ship in a last stand against a mysterious alien time-traveling vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who, in this time, is also a child on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. Twenty-five years later, Kirk has grown into a young troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy instructors like young Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency at Vulcan and the newly commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of it begins.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 1534 Mb h264 1690 Kbps mp4 Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x480 px 2384 Mb mpeg4 2627 Kbps mp4 Download
DVD-rip 640x480 px 627 Mb mpeg4 690 Kbps mp4 Download
iPhone 480x200 px 665 Mb mpeg4 732 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Money Talks, of Course. Anyone Surprised??
1) McCoy goes into an "alternative" past, marries a Vulcan woman and then Spock is born; 2) In another "alternative past", The "red matter", when manipulated in very small amounts in a quantum-related time-space, will permit that the Enterprise computer voice can procreate. Then, the voice and Spock give birth to Nomad (TOS). which by his turn mates with V'Ger (ST:The Movie), and the two enters into a black hole, carrying with them all the known universe. Well, time to reboot again... It's not that difficult to create options. (sarcasm intended)

About the performers, a hats off to Mr. Greenwood, a classic actor, always good and solid.

And the thing goes on and on and on, new gadgets, books, can be created and sold, etc. I'm not a trekker or trekkie, whatever, but, yes, a longtime and errr..."serious" fan of the series, since I was a child. TOS is still the best, by far, followed by TNG. Of course, this new movie is - only for market purposes - a 'Star Trek' one. They call ST a franchise, right? franchise is about profits, money. As another reviewer wrote, I suggest to those still with a brain in reasonable condition: leave it in the front door, in case you insist to watch this expensive nonsense. In an ideal world, it would be great if these Hollywood 'geniuses' leave the iconic works of the past stay at their own (recent catastrophic sequels or remakes including X-Files, The Day The Earth Stood Still, etc). Comparing the latest available Star Trek efforts, any Star Trek Phase II movie is better than this one. ST Phase II has passion and guts, also good and coherent stories IMHO. Give them a try.
2009-05-10
I don't know what that was. But it wasn't Trek.
I was actually glad to see some of the negative reactions here, because I thought I might be alone in my dislike for this movie.

Everyone around me at the premier seemed to be cheering. But I just felt a little sick inside.

As one reviewer said, Trek was at its best when it expected an audience to think. Not to just switch off their brains and enjoy the pretty explosions. This isn't "Independence Day", for crying out loud.

There are dozens of problems with the movie, but the biggest one is the script. I'll say this for the actors. They all tried very hard, and they really put a lot of effort into it. Good on them.

But the script and the story are just ... awful. Dumb. With plot holes so large I could fly a ship through them.

There's problems with the sense of scale. The writers don't seem to realise how big space is. Travelling at warp speeds, and being able to stop on a proverbial dime. Shooting a capsule down to a planet, and randomly finding the one person within walking distance of its landing spot.

And scenes like monster1 chasing our hero, only to see it chomped by larger monster2, means that you think ripping off George Lucas's "Phantom Menace" is probably a good idea.

For those who *really* like their Trek, (and by that, I mean the sort of people who know what's involved in ship to ship warp-transports, and what the maximum range of a transporter is in the 24th century) there'll be even more to drive you nuts. If you were the sort of person who watched Generations and said "Just dump the warp core! WTF?" you'll probably have more problems than I can mention here.

Finally, this movie is the ultimate reset button. (Something I never liked in the series, where it was usually used in Voyager). If you like your comics, you might know what I mean when I say, this is Star Treks "Brand New Day".

Personally, I think this is the last Trek movie.
2009-04-16
Bad movie yes. But not because of what everyone else say.
Maybe I'm wrong. I just type what I think. Here it is:

One conversation between Picard and data or Kirk and Spock is more insightful and thought provoking than all American movies produced for the last eight years. Since 9/11 directors are not allowed to make smart movies any more. Actually they only make propaganda films like in world war 2. But the problem is that those films are smart and thought provoking and inspire people even today.

Some powerful people are making the job of their enemies for them. Making the American people dumper. How can anyone believe that Kirk's actions would earn him something other than a kick out of the academy in any reality that such a benevolent institution exist? How can someone abandon a crew mate on a frozen monster infested planet. How can someone linger next to a black hole and fire all weapons on a dying ship endangering his own ship? Because it looks cool? It that what they want to teach? If American boys go to war with mentality like that will they accomplice anything? They'll just going to get killed. Actually all the characters are petty and cruel and act stupidly. Even the last security guard. Is J.J. Abrams that dump? No. he is told to make it that way.

You think that J.J. does not know that the Romulans can warn their people in the past or does not know all the other unbelievable plot holes? He made the movie. And to be fair all of Star Trek had huge plot holes most of all TOS. The plot was always the means to make a philosophical or technological point. Witch here is obviously non existent.

Just like The Vulcan councilman insults his best student (Spock) in front of everybody with no reason and loses him that is how they insult the audience with no reason and loose them.

The point is propaganda films don't need to be stupid and sure as heck don't need to be stupid when they are based on Star Trek. How can you help people protect them selves from terrorist or any treats? By making them dumper and scared or smart and informed?

This is not Star Trek don't compare it with Star Trek. Its nothing. Only Gene Roddenberry can make star trek and he is dead. what he made he made and that is Star Trek.

But there is a good think to come out of it. Peoples attention will be drawn to the Real Star Trek and maybe they'll learn something.

And if you materialize in a sealed tube filed with water you will die. It is worse than materializing in a wall.
2009-05-16
Very disappointed.
******SPOILERS BELOW******

---Doctor Korby: Are you with me, Captain?

---Captain Kirk: You've created your own Kirk. Why do you need me?

---Doctor Korby: I created him to impress you, not to replace you.

---Captain Kirk: I'm impressed, Doctor. But not the way you think.

{from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"}

This movie didn't have an extended title; it was just Star Trek. But I have some ideas for an extended title:

"The Unreal McCoy"

"Bad Robot Poops On Star Trek"

"Let's Pervert Star Trek To Appease Teenagers"

"Abrams Pilots Star Trek Over The Shark"

I have been a Star Trek fan for 42 years. I have seen every Star Trek story made for the movie screen and TV screen (including the animated series). This was one of the worst Star Trek stories I ever saw.

It was not necessary to "reboot" Star Trek. It was not necessary to change the Enterprise. It was not necessary for Spock and Uhura to have the hots for each other. It was not necessary to destroy Vulcan. It was not necessary to kill Amanda, although it was necessary to remove Winona Ryder from the movie.

There are good parts of the movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who accepted the enormous challenges of playing Kirk and Spock, performed very well. Ben Cross, as Sarek, proved my belief that he would be a good Vulcan. The visual effects were very good, as I would expect from ILM.

However, the many changes in Star Trek history were unjustified. These changes can't be glossed over by saying, "It's obviously an alternate-universe story." That wasn't firmly established in the movie. (There is a difference between alternate-universe and alternate-timeline.) What I saw was J.J. Abrams, Robert Orci, and Alex Kurtzman rewriting Star Trek in a shameless attempt to attract young airheads who wouldn't care about Star Trek anyway.

The absurd design of the "new" Enterprise only reminded me of how beautiful the original NCC-1701 was. The "new" Bridge looked like a disco. The "new" Engineering areas looked like an oil refinery.

The other members of the new cast were mostly disappointing. Zoe Saldana is a lovely lady, but she couldn't carry Nichelle Nichols' boots. Karl Urban's performance almost was a parody of McCoy; he only reminded me of how much I miss DeForest Kelley. John Cho won't make me forget George Takei. Anton Yelchin made Chekov almost irritating. And Simon Pegg almost turned Scotty into the Court Jester (and why did they include that pint-size rockface? Is he the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek?).

Kirk's rapid promotion also was absurd. No matter how good a young officer is, no one rises from Cadet to Captain that fast.

The soundtrack was forgettable. (I've already forgotten it.)

Obviously, nitpickers would go ape over this movie. The star dates - in the 2200s - would set this story in the first season of The Original Series (TOS), long after Kirk became Captain. Delta Vega was moved from the edge of the galaxy to next to Vulcan. The uniforms, like the "new" Enterprise, don't jibe with TOS or "The Cage." (They looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a costume shop.) And how can the Kelvin carry 800 people?

If this was an alternate-universe story, then I hope we never return. I wouldn't mind seeing this young cast in another Star Trek movie, but I would want that movie to return us to this universe, where the Enterprise looks like the NCC-1701 of TOS, Vulcan still exists, and Amanda lives (and is not played by Winona Ryder). But I also believe this is too much to ask.

This "reboot" probably will be very popular with young movie fans. Thus, it might be the template for future Star Trek movies, in which we'll probably see more changes in Star Trek history. But no matter how popular this "rebooted" Star Trek becomes, it's no substitute for TOS or any other Star Trek series. If this is the only option for continuing Star Trek, then let the franchise die with some dignity.
2009-05-09
Star Trek? More like more contemporary Hollywood drivel eagerly lapped up by lowest common denominator
There are lots of points to make regarding this film. 1) The casting was superb, only Uhura's character was pretty shallow and was never really explored. 2) I'm a professional video editor and I've seen many great movies and I can honestly say that this movie has one of the most number of cuts in it I have ever seen. Consequently the directing never shines. The average duration of one shot must be like 3 seconds? If someone is sad enough to count the cuts then it could be worked out ;-)

The effect of this is audience separation, lack of engagement with the plot or characters, the 'masses' may have been impressed by flashing images but anyone with a bit of intelligence will have felt something lacking. I personally felt sick after seeing the film, it has accelerated modern pace to now 'epileptic' proportions. I guess its a reflection of society, because people can't sit still or focus for 3 seconds without realising how boring and insignificant their own lives really are. Take my advice, chill out a bit more.

3) I liked the colourfulness of the battle scenes and the angles used, definitely gave it new life there, but it didn't really manage to disguise the level of CG. The Star Trek movies 1-8 used models as the basis for effects, although this film did better than other contemporaries its still noticeable. I'd prefer a juicy fly-by of a cg enhanced model to a cartoon any day. You can't beat the destruction of the Enterprise in ST3 or the flyby of the spanking new Enterprise E in first contact. Mouthwatering and powerful, instead of thin and annoying.

4) I felt this 'Star Trek' film downgraded the content so that there was nothing profound or intelligent to take home with you, no message. A fundamental error of any film, and certainly of a Star Trek film or episode as this was the basis for all of the good ones. And yes I do think Nemesis and Insurrection were lacking in this too, however they did at least attempt to pay homage to intelligence. This film is more concerned with appealing to all the family like a George Lucas movie, than actually providing anything memorable.

5) The film features time-travel as the convenient plot device which I dislike, its just lazy. The older Trek did use time travel but in a minority, where as the later trend of star trek (a very bad one) in voyager and enterprise was non-stop time travel.

6) The film sets up a new premise for a new series for new fans, and I'm all for this. I want new people to like it. I just won't be a part of it, I'll keep watching the old stuff (there's plenty of it!). However I actually believe that this film is too shallow to have any enduring or lasting appeal, and the masses will not follow it with any loyalty at all.

7)Some child-like elements (little kid drives car fast without parents permission), Disney elements (kirk turns into a cg monster human WTF??) and product placement (Nokia) confirmed how moral-less and banal this film was.

8)The bad guy was mean, Eric Bana is cool, but he didn't have enough screen time to be truly believed.

9)I didn't feel anything for any of the characters, except Leonard Nimoy and thats just cos he was in the movie. I felt for him I really did.

10) There were too many distractions to what could have been a good solid movie.

11) It was good for kids, I think it would inspire my nephews.

12) Regarding the director, I personally think Lost is a big waste of yours and my time, engineered to hook you without ever telling you anything worth knowing. Much like this film. If we spent our time creatively, something might actually be achieved (the spirit of Star Trek).

Conclusion: It was a money-spinner that raped the Star Trek name for a bit of cash, in good old Hollywood style. it might leave a few new fans in its wake, but an even worse sequel is sure to nip that in the bud. The fact that the rating is so high for this movie is due to something I like to call 'The Retard Factor' (should be an episode?). The only way forward for people who actually like Star Trek (and not star wars) is for they themselves to make a film.
2009-06-05
Read Me Trekkies
I have never been so disappointed by a movie than i was by this bubble gum attempt at a prequel. I could have made a better movie on my camera phone. Whoever picked JJ Abrams to direct should be shot. In some interviews, he admits that he's not a star trek fan. Boy, oh boy, does it show. He's 'lost' when it comes to directing; he didn't get any good performances from his actors; It looks like all shots were done on the first take; he rushed through production; and a lot of short sequences in the movie went nowhere and should have been cut. I'm sure he was the one who brought the idiots Kurtzman and Orci to write this poor excuse of a star trek film. Their plot line had so many holes, it was like swiss cheese. I mean they took a massive icon that is star trek and were given the task of making a prequel, and this is the best they could come up with???

Young Kirk drives a corvette off a cliff?? Uhura kiss Spock?? Scotty stuck in a water pipe?? What the heck is 'red matter'?? Launch Kirk off the Enterprise in a pod?? Kirk loses every fight?? Scotty has a sidekick?? etc.etc.etc.

I am a Trekkie,(but not one of those weirdos) and hopefully I can speak for some of us out there who found this movie to have no 'soul'. You could have made a movie that was true to all the elements of the original and still do a 'reboot'. Have you guys seen "Batman Begins" 2005? That is how its done you jerks. This was just a cookie cutter sci-fi cgi movie with the title and character names from the original. I feel like you took everything in me that is Star Trek and spit on it.

I want my ten dollars back.
2009-05-09
Why does everyone like this movie?
I'm not gonna go on here, there's no point. I just want to point out that everyone is so enamored with this ridiculous movie. OK the acting is great, no doubt. But the childish simplicity of the, they're over looking the obvious, which is that the story is insultingly dumb. And why has no one sunk their teeth in to the fact that this whole movie basically nullifies the whole original series.

That's right it's Dallas all over again! TOS, TNG, DS9 all just some crazy dream in another dimension. I'm no trekkie, but surely that can't sit well on the stomachs of the older fans. Wait do we even care about them?

Oh dear, they decided not to bother with an intelligent look into the building relationships of the characters. No, will just skip over that, and go straight into some more time traveling nonsense so we can put Lenard Nimoy in the film. And then to give the 'past' characters technology not even conceived in the 'future' shows... come on, how can anyone defend this film?

That being said, go and watch it for the brilliance of Simon Pegg and Karl Urban!
2009-05-25
Star Kack
Oh dear. I really wanted to like this movie. I am not a "trekkie", I don't speak Klingon or go to conventions, I am not a virgin and I don't blink profusely in day light. However I love science fiction and I have always enjoyed a bit of Star Trek. What makes Trek different from Star Wars is it is about exploration, about brave new technologies, about encountering strange weird space phenomena and somehow overcoming. Most of the time Star Trek had its own inner logic and they used scientists to help keep it consistent. Not so JJ Abrams. The writers of this nano plot know about as much science as JK Rowling. In fact the plot has more in common with Harry Potter than Star Trek. I do believe in magic. Lets list the sorcery and general dumbness.

*opening scene Kirk's dad had to manually fly the whole enterprise by himself as auto pilot was off-line So while manoeuvring a 20000 ton ship he manages to man all off the phaser batteries to stave off Romulan torpedoes all while chatting away on the phone to his expectant wife. *The Romulan ship is a mining ship - why is it loaded to the hilt with military grade torpedoes? * The Romulan ship is from the future. It came back some 129 years from the future through a black hole. Most scientists don't believe a black hole works that way, it simply crushes matter out of existence at its infinitely dense core. However these are magic black holes which work as time travel plot devices some times and destructive forces at others - when say you need to implode Vulcan or destroy the Romulan ship at the end. *Red matter - plot device. One drop can create a singularity (black hole). Just to be on the safe side lets have Spock carry half a ton of it in his tiny ship - which by the way is a rubbish design. *When does a supernova threaten the whole galaxy. *Why wouldn't the Romulans just flee from the star before it goes supernova in case Spock doesn't get there in time. *Why is Nero so hacked off that Spock failed in his attempt to save his home planet (while risking his own neck at the same time) *Having gone back in time why doesn't Nero warn the Romulans about the supernova. *Why do you need to drill into a planets core in order to destroy it with a black hole? *Why does drilling block all transporter and sub space communication signals? *Why not just shoot the drill out like Spock did at the end of the movie? *If there are 800 or more people on a starship why send just 2 guys in the away team to take out the mining ship? * What was Vulcan doing while it was being drilled. Sitting around with their thumbs up their butt. - not logical. *How does Kirk get promoted to Captain jumping several ranks straight out of the academy. Harry Potter becomes headmaster in his final year at school. *If you can beam trans warp across such great distances of space why do you need space ships at all. * The Romulan ship is about to be destroyed this time by the black hole - why do you need to shoot it up as well that's a bit harsh. *How does Kirk out run the hairy ice monster and when the red ice monster jumps in and kills hairy why does it decide that the comparatively small Kirk would make a better meal? * Vulcans under threat but all our Star fleet is on the other side of the galaxy in some war we've only got cadets. What all of them? YES! What if there was a surprise attack on earth - oh then we're screwed.

other comments about the film Kirk - not bad; Uhuru or should I say a-whore-o; Spock unconvincing; Spock Prime looks old man; Bones very good liked him; Scotty slightly better Scottish accent that Doohan; Checkov - amusing; Sulu uninspiring and pointless; Nero not very Romulan -like; special effects pretty good; sets not great - engineering rubbish; sound effects - like the jump to warp (bit star wars though); music - can't even remember the score; emotion -the star fleets been wiped out all are academy friends are dead SO WHAT! or Vulcan just got destroyed 6 billion of them are dead WHATEVER - hey Spock fancy a some kissin' and lovin' even though you are an emotionless SOB.

A blond bimbo of a film - pretty but vacuous.
2009-05-28
An Insult to Our Intelligence
Just as the 3 "Star Wars" prequels ruined the Star Wars franchise (though I never liked it to begin with), this new "Star Trek" prequel is a damaging blow to the Star Trek movie franchise, and this prequel crap needs to stop now. The pathetic writers of this new Hollywood generation can't come up with any new, creative ideas, so they just keep going back in time (as they did with "Batman Begins") with established franchises, as if we need to see over and over again how the characters we love so much got their start. And the BIG problem with this new "Star Trek" movie is that they TOTALLY foul up the history of these characters and then insult our intelligence by having Spock (Prime - the older Spock) say that his actions altered the course of history (which, we learn, is why Kirk's father dies on the day of his birth this time around). What a lame, poor excuse for why the history of Mr. Spock, Captain Pike, Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy and even Chekov is so radically different from what it is in the Original Series and its Original movies. What is different? For one, in TOS, Kirk first served under Captain Robert April on a different starship, and had years of experience as a first officer before becoming captain. In this movie, Kirk's serves with Captain Pike of the Enterprise first, right alongside Spock, and on his FIRST day of service he becomes first officer and then on the very same day is suddenly promoted to Captain! Quite a leap up the ladder! In TOS, Spock is supposed to have served under Captain Pike 13 years before he and Kirk meet. Also, Dr. McCoy suddenly becomes Chief Medical Officer on the very same day that Kirk suddenly becomes Captain. Wow, what a coincidence! This movie so ridiculously rushes the whole thing, but it's OK because Spock altered everything, right? In this movie, Chekov is on the bridge as navigator even BEFORE Kirk ever steps foot on the Enterprise. That means he has MORE experience than Kirk! So in TOS how did Kirk become Captain while Chekov was a lowly ensign? Oh yeah, Spock altered history. And Chekov is said to be 17 in this movie. When did he start at Starfleet Academy--when he was 13?! Finally, this movie has no intelligent (or even intelligible) story. It has a ludicrous story of the Romulans (who look like a biker gang in this movie) creating Black Holes out of planets. And this movie is all action and loudness with dizzying camera shaking, which totally goes against TOS's cleverness of playing on ideas rather than action. Abrams has no business in the "Star Trek" franchise, and I hope he never makes another "Star Trek" movie. But I guess as long as they make plenty of $$$$, it doesn't matter. That's more important than being faithful to the characters and history of the show, right?
2009-05-17
Despicable strip-mining of cultural icon
Arrogance, ignorance and disrespect are writ large in this abominable film which, with its cynical use of time-travel, does two unforgivable things.

In one fell swoop it destroys all other Star Trek stories and histories (apart from the predated last TV series Enterprise). IT ALL NEVER HAPPENED...nada...zip...niente...all absolutely and completely and irrevocably nullified.

And having thus performed genocide, from here on in it allows this cabal of contemptuous filmmakers to commit further evil against the Star Trek characters and their universe, totally unfettered by Star Trek, as we know it. The Star Trek they are cannibalising only continues to exist today because devoted fans have - for over forty years - lovingly burnished and enhanced the patina of this pop culture treasure.

Within the real Star Trek universe, respect for the time-line is a key ethical principle for the Federation and its officers. The forces that have brought the world this film are unburdened by ethics of any kind. It is not surprising then, to find that while they use time-travel to sack, rape and pillage Star Trek, they are unwilling or unable to carry it out to its logical conclusions.

At the very least, from the moment of the destruction of Vulcan (in itself a breathtaking and staggering insolence by the filmmakers), Ambassador Spock, Nero and their ships would have ceased to exist in the current time-line because the future events that led to their being there would not have occurred. No planet Vulcan, no Vulcan Science Academy, no Spock's ship with its enormous load of 'red matter', no failed rescue mission for Ambassador Spock, no avenging Nero, no ridiculous black hole/wormhole to the time and place of Kirk's birth etc.

This is not a parallel universe story. This is a changed timeline. Although the Temporal Prime Directive is still hundreds of years hence in the Star Trek canon, this is exactly what it seeks to prevent.

So it's all a con. This is not Star Trek. A bunch of bully-boys have invaded the playing field, rewritten the rules of the game to suit themselves and then refused to even abide by their own rules. On the back of the commercial success of this movie, they will continue to do what they please, churning out movies in their new franchise, but it won't be Star Trek. They don't know what made Star Trek great and they are therefore doomed to twist and distort its corpse until it becomes obvious to all who care to think about that it's dead and lifeless and that this movie killed it.
2009-05-20
📹 Star Trek full movie HD download 2009 - Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols - USA, Germany. 📀
×